On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >>Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous > >>>>>requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license. > >>>> > >>>>It has an "archive all distributed copies until the expiration of > >>>>copyright" > >>>>requirement (QPL#6 has no expiration!), which is far more onerous, IMO. > >>> > >>> As I said elsewhere, I'm unconvinced by that. At any point you can avoid > >>> this by releasing the code to the general public. But that's an entirely > >>> separate point to the one that was being made. > >> > >>I agree with that assessment, with the exception that you should not > >>have to publish your code to the general public, only to those you > >>distribute the binary to. The GPL's "offer to provide source for 3 > >>years" is questionable in isolation, but irrelevant since one can > >>provide source along with binaries and have no further obligations. > >>Even if you do the same with the QPL, by distributing both source and > >>binary to another party, your obligations have not ended, because the > >>copyright holder may still request those changes. > > > > Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam upstream > > with every change done should resolve all the issue. Or maybe giving him > > consultation access would be enough. > > Spamming upstream is not enough. You have to provide one on request, > even if you just sent one. Additionally, now you're suggesting doing > away with the ability to make private modifications.
Bullshit, you have provided it before it was asked, so where is the problem ? Also, about private modifications, 6c only applies to 'distributed' code, so it in _NO_ way comes into play when doing private modifications. > > The cost of hoarding the source of every version you have released may be > > high, but it hardly makes the licence non-free. It is good practice anyway, > > and maybe even elementary courtesy to the people you distribute the binary > > to. > > And if my backups fail, and my drive is gone, what then? I can't > comply with the license. Well, yes. The same applies with GPLed when using the 3 year clause though, and the GPL is not non-free because of it. And then, well, this is bad luck to you, i have thought about the same, and i guess it will be upto the judge to decide if you really lost your disk, or if you are only pretending. Still a time limit on this one would be reasonable. Friendly, Sven Luther
